과징금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a general restaurant in the trade name of Gangnam-gu Seoul and the first floor above the ground (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from November 1, 201.
B. On May 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 6,160,000 in lieu of the business suspension on July 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff operated a business with his/her chair with his/her chair outside the permitted place of business (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is unlawful in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff provided the customers with a table and a chair on the weekends to provide them with a good quality service; (b) the Plaintiff was found to have been in violation of a civil petition report based on noise; (c) a large number of business establishments around the instant restaurant engage in business outside the place of business; and (d) the Plaintiff was in a situation that is economically difficult for the Plaintiff to provide them with a long-term hospital on September 6, 2016.
(b) Entry in the attached Form of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
C. Whether a punitive administrative disposition deviates from or abused the scope of discretion by social norms ought to be determined by comparing and balancing the degree of infringement of public interest and the disadvantages suffered by an individual due to such disposition, by objectively examining the content of the offense as the grounds for the disposition, the public interest to be achieved by the relevant disposition, and all the relevant circumstances.
In this case, even if the criteria for punitive administrative disposition are prescribed in the form of Ordinance, it is nothing more than that prescribed in the administrative agency's internal rules for administrative affairs, and there is no effect to externally bind citizens or courts. Thus, whether the pertinent disposition is legitimate or not.